[Bldg-sim] Air leakage, LEED, and Appendix G of ASHRAE 90.1

Andy hoover andyhoover at thebestconsultant.com
Wed Aug 26 13:53:07 PDT 2009


Miss Brenda:

 

My suggestion is that LEED immediately start to require a goal for air
leakage and testing of that goal after construction along with requiring
building envelope commissioning.  The current waste of energy and carbon
impact is immense not just in energy operating costs but in dramatically
shortened useful life of building envelope components and entire facades and
roofs.  Most building envelope components reach the end of their useful life
at 40 to 60 percent of the time they should last.  This is one of the
largest contributors to lack of sustainability in the world.  The
significant factors in this are poor/improper installation and lack of
maintenance.  Based upon our rough observations, most NEW buildings are at
double to triple the 'by code' air leakage rate because there is no
inspection, testing, and building envelope commissioning.

 

Those who say the technology does not exist to do the inspecting and testing
are not truthful.  It can be done today.  It is not free but the return is
huge.  Certainly there should be the same requirements in code, but a good
start is you folks, Energy Star and the new ASHRAE rating system.

 

This is an opportunity for USGBC to LEED T, pun intended J, the way. 

 

Wow, that 2 cents felt good.

 

Thanks,

 

Andy

 

Andy Hoover

Principal

The BEST Consultant, Inc.

Office: 678-200-7648

Fax:678-827-0574

Cell: 678-793-1159

 

www.thebestconsultant.com

 

 

  _____  

This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you
are not the addressee or authorized to receive this information for the
addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on
this message or information herein. If you have received this message in
error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this
message. Thank you for your cooperation.

From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Brenda V.
Morawa
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 5:18 PM
To: 'Paul Carey'; 'Paul Grahovac'; sheffer at energyopportunities.com;
bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Air leakage, LEED, and Appendix G of ASHRAE 90.1

 

I don't think any of us disagree that there are significant benefits to be
had by having tighter buildings. 

 

Part of the issue is the lack of a documented base line here in the US.  I'm
not aware of any (enforced or otherwise) baseline that is required and/or
published.  Does anyone else have that data?

 

Additionally, projects are not required, at this point in time, to
demonstrate or document air leakage rates after construction.  So that is
typically leaving us with two variables in a model that are based on the
modeler's best judgment.  Understanding many things in the model are the
'modelers best judgment', at this point, we need more to go on.

 

 My unofficial two cents.

 

The good thing about this is there's always room for improvement and there
are a good many, very well intentioned volunteers working on improving the
system.

 

Brenda V. Morawa, PE, QCxP, HPBDP, LEED AP

President/Principal

Co-Vice Chair, USGBC Implementation Committee

BVMELogo3jpg

BVM Engineering, Inc.

834 Inman Village Parkway

Suite 230

Atlanta, Georgia 30307

404.806.2018 x 101

(c)404.210.6593

 

From: Paul Carey [mailto:paul at zed-uk.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 4:47 PM
To: 'Brenda V. Morawa'; 'Paul Grahovac'; sheffer at energyopportunities.com;
bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] Air leakage, LEED, and Appendix G of ASHRAE 90.1

 

Dear Paul, et al

 

I have to agree with Paul's comments on this one.

 

We can and have to take account of infiltration reductions within our UK
building regulations calculations and indeed in certain circumstances they
can be the difference between different grades for the buildings when
thermal mass and other passive design techniques or super efficient HVAC
systems have been taken into account.

 

At the design stage you "choose" an infiltration rate that the design team
is willing to take the risk on achieving and if not you can use a default
infiltration rate which equates to a reasonably well built modern building
(this obviously gets reviewed and reduced a little over time to increase the
requirements).  The key to it being that in order for the builder to obtain
the building regulations and occupation certificates, the actual measured
air infiltration rates have to be put into the design simulation model post
build to ensure that what the design team has said will be achieved, is
actually achieved.  In fact it is possibly at the moment one of the most
successful parts of our regulations.

 

This has 2 main benefits, it means that contractors have to think about the
quality of their build and good detailing from the start and subsequently if
they allow a poor building to be built that exceeds the minimum standards or
their chosen design value, they have to go and identify the air leakage
paths and bring the building up to that standard before they can get an
occupation certificate.

 

When you consider that our default air leakage rate is 10m3/hr and we see
many large commercial warehousing projects (a good example where composite
panels are often used for air tight seals) that have leakage rates of less
than 2m3/hr.m2 it is possible to see that large benefits might be possible
in some instances.  On a large warehouse with perhaps background heating for
the operatives, this reduction in infiltration can result in very large
reductions in energy use/carbon emissions for heating, etc.

 

I am slightly surprised that a USGBC/ASHRAE baseline rate doesn't exist to
allow benefits to be taken into account, especially when it is possible to
use the test results to enforce improvements to be made, in a way it acts as
both carrot and stick.

 

Regards

Paul

 

 




Dr Paul Carey

BSc (Hons) PhD FRSA

Director

Low Carbon Energy Assessor

 

Zero Energy Design Ltd

10A Portland Place

2-22 Mottram Road

Stalybridge

SK15 3AD

 


T:  0161 3386200

F:  0161 3031281

M: 0789 4098012

E:  paul at zed-uk.com

W:  www.zed-uk.com

 


 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 



Certificate No: GB16647

 

 



Certificate No: GB16646

 

 

Please carefully consider the environment before you print this email.

 

Company Registered in England & Wales.  Registration No. 5815068

Registered Address: 10A Portland Place, 2-22 Mottram Road, Stalybridge, SK15
3AD, UK.

 

Privilege and Confidentiality Notice:

 

This email and any attachments to it are intended only for the party to whom
they are addressed.  They may contain privileged and/or confidential
information.  If you have received this transmission in error, please notify
the sender immediately and delete any digital copies and destroy any paper
copies.  Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Brenda V.
Morawa
Sent: 24 August 2009 15:11
To: 'Paul Grahovac'; sheffer at energyopportunities.com;
bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Air leakage, LEED, and Appendix G of ASHRAE 90.1

 

Paul,

 

Perhaps you should volunteer YOUR time on the ASHRAE 90.1 committee.

 

Brenda V. Morawa, PE, QCxP, HPBDP, LEED AP

President/Principal

Co-Vice Chair, USGBC Implementation Committee

BVMELogo3jpg

BVM Engineering, Inc.

834 Inman Village Parkway

Suite 230

Atlanta, Georgia 30307

404.806.2018 x 101

(c)404.210.6593

 

From: Paul Grahovac [mailto:paul.grahovac at prosoco.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 10:09 AM
To: Brenda V. Morawa; sheffer at energyopportunities.com;
bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Air leakage, LEED, and Appendix G of ASHRAE 90.1

 

My understanding is that one of the co-founders of the Air Barrier
Association of America is actively involved with the committee, and I have
an e-mail from him confirming that reduction in air leakage can be modeled
and the energy savings used in the award of LEED points.

 

However, given the contrary position I am hearing, I am beginning to become
concerned that some approach other than begging ASHRAE and USGBC to be
reasonable needs to be considered.

 

Paul Grahovac, LEED AP

 

From: Brenda V. Morawa [mailto:bren at bvm-engineering.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 9:01 AM
To: Paul Grahovac; sheffer at energyopportunities.com;
bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] Air leakage, LEED, and Appendix G of ASHRAE 90.1

 

Paul,

 

Perhaps you should volunteer your time on the ASHRAE 90.1 committee.

 

Brenda V. Morawa, PE, QCxP, HPBDP, LEED AP

President/Principal

Co-Vice Chair, USGBC Implementation Committee

BVMELogo3jpg

BVM Engineering, Inc.

834 Inman Village Parkway

Suite 230

Atlanta, Georgia 30307

404.806.2018 x 101

(c)404.210.6593

 

From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Paul Grahovac
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 9:55 AM
To: sheffer at energyopportunities.com; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Bldg-sim] Air leakage, LEED, and Appendix G of ASHRAE 90.1

 

I am sure there is just as much baseline for air leakage reduction benefit
as there is for the concrete walls and wooden studs that the User's Manual
says can be modeled and their energy savings captured for inclusion in the
overall modeling results.

 

I cannot accept that the USGBC and ASHRAE can arbitrarily say reduction in
air leakage will not be considered, but that increases in thermal mass
energy-savings from using concrete walls or energy benefits from using
wooden studs will be used to compute building energy performance.  This
obviously rewards concrete block producers and wood stud suppliers and
penalizes air barrier suppliers.  

 

I'm reminded of Lord Acton's famous observation:  "Power corrupts, and
absolute power corrupts absolutely."  Fortunately, even the power of
organizations like ASHRAE and USGBC are subject to some ultimate check.
Such organizations are prohibited by law from arbitrary practices that favor
one group over another.  Below are excerpts from the leading United States
Supreme Court case on the subject. 

 

Paul Grahovac, LEED AP

 

American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Inc. v. Hydrolevel Corporation, 

456 U.S. 556, 102 S.Ct. 1935, 72 L.Ed.2d. 330

(1982), Supreme Court Justice Blackmun, writing for the majority:

 

"Furthermore, a standard setting organization like ASME can be rife with

opportunities for anti competitive activity. Many of ASME's officials are

associated with members of the industries regulated by ASME's codes.

Although, undoubtedly, most serve ASME without concern for the interests of

their corporate employers, some may well view their positions with ASME, at

least in part, as an opportunity to benefit their employers. When the great

influence of ASME's reputation is placed at their disposal, the less
altruistic of

ASME's agents have an opportunity to harm their employers' competitors

through manipulation of ASME's codes."

ID.., at 571, 102 S.Ct., at 1946.

 

In American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed
a jury

verdict that awarded treble damages to the company that was injured by
certain members of the

trade organization that had manipulated the trade organization and its role
in the industry to set

standards designed to enrich those members' corporation and diminish the
ability of its

competitors to fairly compete in the marketplace. In deciding to hold the
trade organization

responsible for the actions of its members, the Court explained:

 

"It is true that imposing liability on ASME's agents themselves will have
some

deterrent effect, because they will know that if they violate antitrust laws
through

their participation in ASME, they risk the consequences of personal civil
liability.

But if, in addition, ASME is civilly liable for the antitrust violations of
its agents

acting with apparent authority, it is much more likely that similar
antitrust

violation will not occur in the future. "Pressure will be brought on the

organization to see to it that its agents abide by the law." United States
v. A&P

Trucking Co., 358 U.S. 121, 126, 79 S.Ct. 203, 207, 3 L.Ed.2d 165 (1958).
Only

ASME can take systematic steps to make improper conduct on the part of all
its

agents unlikely, and the possibility of civil liability will inevitably be a
powerful

incentive for ASME to take those steps. Thus, a rule that imposes liability
on the

standard setting organization- which is best situated to prevent antitrust
violations

through the abuse of its reputation-is most faithful to the congressional
intent that

the private right of action deters antitrust violations."

14:., at 572-573, 102 S.Ct., at 1946.

 

 

 

  _____  

From: Marcus Sheffer [mailto:sheffer at energyopportunities.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 8:22 AM
To: Paul Grahovac; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] Air leakage, LEED, and Appendix G of ASHRAE 90.1

 

As I understand it the issue is that the 90.1 Standard does not establish a
base line condition for air leakage so no savings can be claimed.  I
certainly agree that the savings are real and should be counted.  I know
that the Appendix G committee has this issue on their extensive "to do"
list.

 

Marcus Sheffer, Chair - USGBC EA TAG

7group

 

 

From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Paul Grahovac
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:00 PM
To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Bldg-sim] Air leakage, LEED, and Appendix G of ASHRAE 90.1

 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) did an extensive
study documenting a greater than 40% natural gas savings and a greater than
25% electricity savings across the nation for building energy consumption if
buildings were uniformly constructed with air barrier systems installed.
They evaluated 116 existing buildings and computer modeled several different
building types.  The purpose of their study was to provide information to
ASHRAE concerning whether it would be desirable to add an air barrier
requirement to ASHRAE 90.1.

 

As a result, I've always thought that Appendix G to ASHRAE 90.1 allows you
to change the air leakage rate off the default and onto a rate corresponding
to an air barrier installation, so that you could claim LEED points for the
corresponding energy savings.  However, an architect at a presentation I did
said you could not do that under the LEED and ASHRAE requirements.  (I know
the models will do it, because I've done it on the TRANE model and obtained
results that support the NIST findings.)

 

I see in Appendix G that:  "G3.1.2.5. Ventilation.  Minimum outdoor air
ventilation rates shall be the same for the proposed and baseline building
designs."  However, I searched the document for "outdoor air ventilation"
and the phrase occurs only in the context of mechanical systems that are
designed to intentionally bring air into the building.  If this section is
the basis for concluding that air leakage barriers should be left out of the
modeling, then I have trouble understanding why.

 

Appendix G says that all components of the building are to be modeled as
designed.  That would preclude modeling as if an air barrier system did not
exist in the design.  It says the baseline building model is to have
steel-framed above-grade walls, and it is silent about the design building,
but the User's Manual says that if the design building walls are block or
cast concrete, then "the mass is credited in the building performance rating
method."  Likewise, if the walls are wood stud instead of steel, then the
Manual says credit is given for the superior energy performance of wood
frame versus steel frame.  The User's Manual states that it:  "Offers
information on the intent and application of Standard 90.1."  Given these
examples in the Manual based on existing thermal mass energy-saving data and
wood-versus-steel stud energy data, it is difficult to conclude that a wall
that is constructed with materials meeting the air leakage limits and
installation requirements of the Air Barrier Association of America and
determined to produce significant energy savings by the NIST study based on
those same limits and requirements should be modeled as if it leaked air
like a building without an air barrier. 

 

Please let me know what you think, and if you know of any reason why it is
not proper to change the air leakage rate through the building envelope in
the design model to show the benefit of air barriers.

 

Thanks,

 

Paul Grahovac, LEED AP

R-GUARD Air & Water-Resistive Barrier Product Manager

PROSOCO, Inc.

3741 Greenway Circle

Lawrence, Kansas  66046

(785) 830-7355

(888) 376-3417 fax

pgrahovac at prosoco.com

web site  http://www.prosoco.com/

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090826/dfda602c/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2325 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090826/dfda602c/attachment-0005.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3660 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090826/dfda602c/attachment-0006.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3270 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090826/dfda602c/attachment-0007.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3204 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090826/dfda602c/attachment-0008.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3183 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090826/dfda602c/attachment-0009.jpeg>


More information about the Bldg-sim mailing list